Harris v. Archie et al

Filing 44

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Report and Recommendation DE 41 is ACCEPTED. Plaintiffs will have one final opportunity to file an amended pleading in compliance with this Order, but any such pleading must be filed on or before May 30, 2024. The Motion [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time DE 43 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 5/9/2024. See attached document for full details. (ebz) Modified to add text on 5/9/2024 (mr1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-14392-CIV-CANNON
DAVID L. HARRIS, and
SHONDA T. HARRIS,
v.

Plaintiffs,

LA SOLOMON J. ARCHIE et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 41]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”) [ECF No. 41], filed on April
24, 2024. On March 1, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 29].
On April 24, 2024, following referral, Judge Matthewman issued a Report recommending that the
Motion be denied [ECF No. 41 pp. 1, 9]. Objections to the Report were due on May 8, 2024
[ECF No. p. 9]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 41 p. 9].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file
specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation
to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject,
or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report,
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the

CASE NO. 23-14392-CIV-CANNON
record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston
v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For
the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 41 pp. 4–9], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 41] is ACCEPTED.

2.

The Motion [ECF No. 29] is GRANTED.

3.

Plaintiffs will have one final opportunity to file an amended pleading in compliance
with this Order, but any such pleading must be filed on or before May 30, 2024.

4.

Plaintiffs are warned that failure to file the amended complaint on time and in
compliance with this Court’s order will result in dismissal of this case for failure to
prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

5.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time [43] is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 9th day of May 2024.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

counsel of record

2